Seismic Upgrade of Beam-Column Joints With FRP Reinforcement

Prota, A., A. Nanni, G. Manfredi, and E.
Cosenza, "Seismic Upgrade of Beam-Column Joints with FRP

Reinforcement," Industria Italiana del Cemento, Nov. 2000.
Seismic Upgrade of Beam-Column Joints with FRP Reinforcement
A. Prota 1, A. Nanni1, G. Manfredi2, E. Cosenza 2

1
University of Missouri – Rolla
2
University of Naples – Federico II
Abstract
Many opportunities are becoming available for using composite materials to strengthen/upgrade
existing reinforced concrete (RC) structures. This paper focuses on a new technique for the
seismic upgrade of RC beam-column connections in gravity load-designed (GLD) frames by the
application (combined or not) of FRP rods and laminates. The FRP rods provide flexural
strengthening, whereas the lay-up laminates provide confinement and shear strengthening. Along
with the modeling of such upgraded connections to assess the increase of strength and/or
ductility provided by the composite reinforcement, an experimental program was planned and it
is being undertaken. A preview of it is given in this paper together with an explanation of its
philosophy; furthermore, interesting preliminary results are presented and discussed. It appears
that the proposed upgrade method will have a significant impact of the engineering practice in
the near future.
Introduction
The upgrade of the seismic performances of existing reinforced concrete (RC), gravity load
designed (GLD) structures is an important issue that involves economic and social aspects in
different areas of the world like, for example, Europe, USA and Japan. In fact, the RC frames,
designed without seismic provisions, are often characterized by an unsatisfactory structural
behavior due to the low available ductility and the lack of a strength hierarchy inducing global
failure mechanisms. In these cases, some constructive details of the GLD frames can be pointed
out as the potential critical causes of brittle failure mechanisms, which are sensitive to the cyclic
damage. For example in a column, the lack of appropriate size and spacing of ties, which does
not guarantee the required level of confinement, can cause the collapse of the column end,
resulting in crushing of the not confined concrete, instability of the steel reinforcing bars in
compression and pull out of those in tension.
A critical region in an RC frame is the beam-column connection, where different constructive
details can originate local failures, such as the shear collapse of the panel due to the lack of
transverse reinforcement. Moreover, either for the scarce stirrup reinforcement or for the extreme
loads due to a seismic event a beam can show a shear failure. In general, the lack of a design
based on the strength hierarchy influences the global behavior of GLD frames and is responsible
for the low dissipative capacity [Cosenza and Manfredi 1997, White and Mosalam 1997].
The present paper focuses on the problems connected with the seismic upgrading of GLD frames
and, in particular, on beam-column joints that can be knee, interior, exterior, or corner joints
depending on their vertical and horizontal position in the structure. On interior and exterior GLD
connections (a large part of the joints of a building), an experimental study was performed by
1
Prota, A., A. Nanni, G. Manfredi, and E. Cosenza, "Seismic Upgrade of Beam-Column Joints with FRP
Beres et al. [1996]. They underlined seven critical details that could be potential causes of
failure in a non-seismically designed structure subject to an earthquake. Four of the seven were
related to the columns, they are:
• Longitudinal reinforcement less than 2% of the concrete cross section

• Lapped splices of the longitudinal reinforcement above the construction joint
• Scarce confinement provided by the ties, and
• Construction joints above and below the beam-column connection
The remaining three are related to:
• Discontinuous positive reinforcement in the beam

• Lack of transverse reinforcement in the panel, and
• Weak column-strong beam condition.
Composite materials, known as fiber reinforced polymers (FRP), have shown a great potential
for the strengthening of reinforced concrete structures [Dolan et al. 1999] in the forms of:
• Lay-up laminates externally bonded to a concrete member to increase flexural and

shear capacity as well as to provide concrete confinement [Alkhrdhaji et al. 1999],
and
• Near surface mounted (NSM) reinforcement to increase flexural and shear strength
[De Lorenzis et al. 2000].
At present, studies on the possible application of composite materials for the seismic upgrade of
RC beam-column connections are at early stage [Pantelides et al. 2000]. The present research
focuses on this topic with the objective of evaluating the opportunities offered by using FRP
sheets and NSM rods in strengthening GLD joints. In order to assess the validity of this
strengthening methodology, a detailed experimental program is proposed. The program will
analyze the effects of FRP reinforcement detailing and the other parameters on the global
behavior of the beam-column connection and its failure mechanisms. The test results and their
analysis will be used to compile design and construction guidelines on the seismic retrofitting
and upgrade of RC beam-column joints with FRP sheets and NSM rods.
This paper will provide a first insight on the research program previously described. The
outcomes of the first two tests are presented and the encouraging results are discussed.
Research Objectives
The goal of this research is to investigate the effects of the FRP reinforcement detailing on the
behavior of the beam-column connection, its failure mechanisms, and its ductility. In particular,
the planned experimental program is expected to demonstrate that, by means of targeted
strengthening, it is possible to establish a strength hierarchy in the member. This hierarchy starts
from lowest level (i.e., column failure) given by the virgin joint. The first level of FRP upgrade
moves the failure to the panel, and then, further strengthening moves it to the beam. The
influence of the axial load applied to the column is also investigated. The final results will be
used to develop design guidelines that, for different situations, would allow the choice of the
2
upgrade level for the joint depending on the desired strength and/or ductility. Ultimately, in
same cases, the engineer could modify the performance of an existing structure with an
economical and sound technology.
Test specimens
In choosing the dimensions of the specimen, typical frame and geometrical ratios were taken in
account even though some scaling was adopted to maintain the specimen size and weight to a
manageable level. The specimens cross sections and the steel reinforcement used are shown in
Figure 1.
The specimen design was carried out following the recommendations of a building code [ACI
318-63] pre-dating the current one, as it is representative of a large number of existing buildings.
These code provisions were used to determine the spacing of steel stirrups and ties. The amount
of longitudinal steel reinforcement for the column was fixed equal to about 2% of its concrete
gross cross-sectional area (ACI 318-63 allows a minimum of 1%). The concrete cover was equal
to 38 mm (1.5 in). Concerning the materials, the concrete had compressive strength f’ c = 31.7
MPa (4530 psi) and the steel was characterized by fy = 420 MPa (60000 psi).
For flexural strengthening of the column, #3 (i.e., 9.5 mm= 0.375 in diam.) CFRP rods were
used, having the modulus of elasticity Efr=106,400 MPa (15200 ksi) and the ultimate tensile
strength f*ru=1,904 MPa (272 ksi). The confinement by lay-up jacketing was accomplished with
two plies of CFRP. Each ply had a fiber-only thickness of 0.165 mm (0.0065 in ) characterized
by a modulus of elasticity Efs =229,600 MPa (32800 ksi) and the ultimate tensile strength
f*su =3,465 MPa (495 ksi). The FRP wrapping was extended for 38 cm (15 in) over the length of
the column and an overlap of 10 cm (4 in) was realized for each ply.
The set-up of each specimen on the laboratory floor is shown in Figure 2. At one of the column
ends a constant axial load P is applied by means of an hydraulic jack independently operated. At
the other end of the column, a load cell is placed to record the applied load P. The restraints at
the extremes of the columns simulate hinges that allow rotation by means of a pair of steel bars
on both sides of the element. Two additional shear loads are applied on the extremes of each
beam. Even in this case the jacks are independently operated. A load cell on each cylinder
contacting the beam records the applied force. A plywood sheet between the specimen and the
floor limits the friction and allows for the free movement of the beams and column..
For the specimen where the column is to be strengthened with NSM rods, eight wooden strips
were nailed to the forms so that grooving the column and drilling through the panel for the
subsequent installation of the rods could be performed with less difficulty and greater precision.
Figure 3 shows this detail. It has been demonstrated in other projects that the grooving and
drilling is possible in the field with conventional tools. Figure 4 shows the case of NSM rods
mounted in a bridge column and anchored in the footing with a length of 0.5 m (18 in) [Alkhrdaji
and Nanni 2000].
Experimental program
The first phase of the experimental program consists of 12 tests. In particular, two series of tests
are planned. Each series is characterized by the same axial load applied to the column. The
difference among the six specimens relates to the level of upgrading, designed to verify expected
steps of the strength hierarchy. The first specimen is the “virgin” joint (1.a or 2.a), like those
3
designed and built without seismic provisions. The other five are upgraded with FRP
reinforcement in the following ways: two of them show respectively wrapping (1.b or 2.b) and
wrapping combined with NSM rods in the column (1.c or 2.c). In the following two, both column
and panel are strengthened, the latter with sheets (1.d or 2.d) and sheets and rods (1.e and 2.e),
respectively. In the last one, the wrapping of the beams is added to the strengthening of columns
and panel (1.f or 2.f). This program is summarized in the in Table 1 (for the symbols see Figure 1
and Appendix A). Figure 5 shows the difference between specimen types a or b and specimen
types c, d, e, and f .
The influence of the compressive stress acting the column on the resistant mechanism of the
connection will be assessed by comparing specimens belonging to the series. Axial loads
reported in Table 1 induce in the columns an average compressive stress equal to 6 MPa (860
psi) for series 1 and 3 MPa (430 psi) for series 2. The larger value of this stress takes into
account the increase of axial load due to a seismic event, while the smaller refers to
serviceability conditions.
Loading arrangement
Once the specimen is in place (as depicted in Figure 3), the loading process includes the
following steps:
• Axial column load application: this is the preliminary step, during which gradually the
prefixed load P is applied to the column. During the application of the axial load, the beam
ends are free in order to allow the small displacements in their transverse direction.
• Gravity beam loads application: after the axial load has reached the fixed value and is kept
constant, the beam load setup is arranged. Two equal shear forces are then applied to the
beam ends in order to simulate the effect of gravity loads. The amount of the total load was
calculated to reproduce on the beams the serviceability situation. In particular, the adopted
value V= 40.1 kN (9 kips) generates a maximum flexural moment equal to half of the design
moment obtained according to ACI provisions. The beam-column joint configuration in the
laboratory during this phase is shown in the Figure 6.
• Reversed load cycles: with this step the earthquake simulation starts. As soon as the beam
shear is unequal at each side of the connection, a flexural moment and shear forces are
generated in the column to maintain equilibrium. The increment/decrement ? V= 4.45 kN (1
kip) was established so that at least six reversed load cycles were needed before reaching the
design moment strength in the column calculated according to ACI provisions. The algebric
sum of beams shears and compressive column axial force is kept constant during the test.
Figure 7a schematically shows the shears application performed by maintaining the jacks
from the same side of the beams and increasing/decreasing their forces. For every shear force
increment/decrement, three repetitions are performed. Once zero shear force is reached at
one of the beam ends (i.e., nine load cycles), the load configuration is changed switching the
cylinders on the beam ends as shown in Figure 7b.
The three steps described above are shown in Figure 8 which represents the temporal load
application recorded during a test.
4
Preliminary experimental results
After the first two tests (1a and 1c in Table 1) some significant results were obtained. First, a
comparison between virgin and strengthened joint underlines an significant increase of the
column strength; a change also in the column stiffness can be observed. Moreover, while the
former collapsed by compressive failure at the critical cross sections in the column, in the latter,
the crisis migrated to the panel.
In the strengthened specimen, panel failure occurred without using the total column capacity,
but, in spite of this condition, the ultimate column shear was about 1.6 times that of the virgin
column. These results can be clearly observed in Figure 9.
Additional information was also given by the strain gauges applied to the CFRP laminate in the
direction of the fibers (i.e., hoop direction) on two lines parallel to the axis of the beams and
placed, respectively, at 5 cm (2 in) (1 and 13 in Figure 10) and 10 cm (4 in) (2 and 14 in Figure
10) from the end of the column. The strains recorded on the horizontal superior face of the
column (1 and 2) and on its vertical side (13 and 14) have substantially similar values for tensile
stress on the latter. However, during the cyclic load, when the column face is in compression, the
recorded strains increase due to the increasing demanded degree of confinement. Moreover, the
high strains of the FRP wrapping (about 0.0023 in/in), corresponding to the failure of the panel,
underline the effectiveness of its confinement function. Finally, a comparison between the strains
recorded by 13 and 14 allows to point out how the amount of demanded confinement decreases
strongly when the distance from the nodal zone increases. The graphs reported in Figure 10 show
all this.
Preliminary Analysis
Confirmation of the validity of the test set up and loading procedure was provided by a
preliminary analysis of the results obtained for the virgin column. First, the moment-curvature
relationship shows that the ultimate moment of the column 42.3 kNm ( 31.2 ft-kip) is practically
identical to the experimental moment 42.5 kNm (31.3 ft-kip) calculated by equilibrium of the
applied loads. This confirms that the test setup works as expected and the experimental behavior
of the column was consistent with the theoretical prediction. As experimentally observed, the
analysis confirms that the failure was due to concrete crushing, while at that instant the steel
reinforcement on the tension side was yielded. For the strengthened specimen, a similar analysis
is being carried out, adding the contribution of the additional FRP rods and the effect of the
jacketing on its flexural strength.
Conclusions
The preliminary results of an experimental program confirmed that the combined action by FRP
jacketing and near surface mounted FRP rods can be a promising and flexible retrofit technique
for beam-column connections in GLD buildings. In fact, it could make it possible to modify
strength and/or ductility of the joints by varying the combined use of FRP wrapping and NSM
rods. In this way the design of the retrofitting could be oriented to induce a favourable collapse
mode of the upgraded frame.
5
In order to accurately assess the influence of different key parameters (e.g., axial force, amount
and type of FRP reinforcement), it is necessary to complete the experimental program described
herein.
The goal of the project is to define design criteria so that, known the initial conditions and loads,
it will be possible to design the structural retrofit changing the failure mode and varying the
improvement in terms of strength and/or ductility.
References
American Concrete Institute Committee, (1963) “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete” ACI 318-63, Detroit USA.
Alkhrdaji, T., Nanni., A., Chen, G., and Barker, M., (1999) “Upgrading The Transportation
Infrastructure: Solid RC Decks Strengthened with FRP,” Concrete International: Design
and Construction, Vol. 21, No. 10, Oct. 1999, pp. 37-41.
Alkhrdaji, T and A. Nanni, (2000)“Flexural Strengthening of Bridge Piers Using FRP
Composites,” ASCE Structures Congress 2000, Philadelphia, PA M. Elgaaly, Ed., May
8-10, CD version, #40492-046-008, 8 pp.
Beres, A., Pessiki, S.P., White, R. N. and Gergely, P., (1996), “Implications of Experiments on
the seismic behavior of Gravity Load Designed RC Beam-to-Column Connections”,
Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 12, No. 2, May, pp. 185-198.
Cosenza, E. and Manfredi G., (1997), “Some Remarks on the Evaluation and Strengthening of
Underdesigned R.C. Frame Buildings”, Technical Report, NCEER-97-0003 - State
University of New York at Buffalo, pp.157-175.
De Lorenzis, L., A. Nanni, and A. La Tegola, (2000)“Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete
Structures with Near Surface Mounted FRP Rods,” International Meeting on Composite
Materials, PLAST 2000, Proceedings, Advancing with Composites 2000, Ed. I. Crivelli-
Visconti, Milan, Italy, May 9-11, 2000, pp. 419-426.
Dolan, C.W., S. Rizkalla and A. Nanni, Editors, (1999), Fiber Reinforced-Polymer
Reinforcement for Concrete Structures – Fourth International Symposium (FRPRCS4),
ACI Special Publication No. 188, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
1999, 1182 pp.
Pantelides, C., Clyde, C. and Reaveley, L., (2000), “Rehabilitation of R/C Building Joints with
FRP Composites”, 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New
Zealand.
White R.N. and Mosalam, K., (1997), “Seismic Evaluation and Rehabilitation of Concrete
Buildings”, Technical Report, NCEER-97-0003 - State University of New York at
Buffalo, pp.177-196.
Acknowledgements
This project is the result of a collaborative effort between The University of Missouri – Rolla
(UMR) and the University of Naples Federico II. The authors acknowledge the support of the
NSF Industry/University Cooperative Research Center on Repair of Buildings and Bridges with
Composites based at UMR and MAC SpA, Treviso, Italy.
6
Appendix A - Notations list
Acol: area of longitudinal steel reinforcement on one side of the columns;

As : area of superior longitudinal reinforcement of the beams;
A’s : area of inferior longitudinal reinforcement of the beams;
C: dimension of each side of the columns and of minimum side of the beams;
f’c: compressive strength of concrete;
fy: yield stress of steel reinforcement;
D: maximum dimension of the beams;
Efr: modulus of elasticity of CFRP rods;
Efs : modulus of elasticity of CFRP sheets;
P: axial load on the columns;
s: space between each stirrup in the columns;
s’: space between each tie in the beams;
V1: shear on beam 1 during reversed load cycles;
V2: shear on beam 2 during reversed load cycles;
Vv: shear on both beams due to vertical loads;
List of Tables
Table 1. Experimental program
7
Prota, A., A. Nanni, G. Manfredi, and E. Cosenza, "Seismic Upgrade of Beam-Column Joints with FRP Reinforcement," Industria Italiana del Cemento, Nov.
2000.
Table 1. Experimental program
COLUMN PANEL BEAM

Axial C Acol s FRP FRP upgraded C D As As ’ s’ FRP
SET Spec. Load sheets NSMr by sheets
kips in bars in. layers rods in. in. rods rods in. layers
. number
1.a 56 8 2 - #5 8 0 0 ------- 8 14 3 - #7 2 - #6 4 0
1.b 56 8 2 - #5 8 2 0 ------- 8 14 3 - #7 2 - #6 4 0
1 1.c 56 8 2 - #5 8 2 8 - #3 ------- 8 14 3 - #7 2 - #6 4 0
1.d 56 8 2 - #5 8 2 8 - #3 sheets 8 14 3 - #7 2 - #6 4 0
1.e 56 8 2 - #5 8 2 8 - #3 sh.+NSMr 8 14 3 - #7 2 - #6 4 0
1.f 56 8 2 - #5 8 2 8 - #3 sh.+NSMr 8 14 3 - #7 2 - #6 4 2
2.a 28 8 2 - #5 8 0 0 ------- 8 14 3 - #7 2 - #6 4 0
2.b 28 8 2 - #5 8 2 0 ------- 8 14 3 - #7 2 - #6 4 0
2 2.c 28 8 2 - #5 8 2 8 - #3 ------- 8 14 3 - #7 2 - #6 4 0
2.d 28 8 2 - #5 8 2 8 - #3 sheets 8 14 3 - #7 2 - #6 4 0
2.e 28 8 2 - #5 8 2 8 - #3 sh.+NSMr 8 14 3 - #7 2 - #6 4 0
2.f 28 8 2 - #5 8 2 8 - #3 sh.+NSMr 8 14 3 - #7 2 - #6 4 2
Conversions:
1 kip = 4.448 kN
1 in. = 25.4 mm
#m = m/8 in.
8
List of Figure Captions
Figure 1. Specimen geometry (1 in =25.4 mm)

Figure 2. Test set-up
Figure 3. Details of a specimen upgraded by FRP rods
Figure 4: Field preparation of grooves and holes for NSM reinforcement installation
Figure 5. Specimen c, d, e or f (on the left) and specimen a or b (on the right) before casting
Figure 6. Gravity beam loads application
Figure 7. Reversed loads on the beams before (a) and (b) after negative shear values
Figure 8. Load history
Figure 9. Column shear-displacement: (a) virgin joint, (b) upgraded joint
Figure 10. Column moment-sheet strain at different locations
9
List of Figures
Figure 1
10
Hydraulic
Cylinder
Inserts in the
Hydraulic
strong floor
Cylinder
Load cell
Figure 2
11
Wood
piece
section D-D Cross section of the column
Figure 3
Figure 4
12
Figure 5
Figure 6
13
P+V1+V2
beam1 beam 2
V1=Vv ± n? V V2=Vv ± n? V
(a)
P+V1+V2
V 1=Vv - m? V
beam1 beam 2
V 2=Vv + m? V
(b)
Figure 7
14
24000
22000 Vv
20000 V2
18000 V1
16000
Beam shear (pounds)
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0 AXIAL
LOAD
-2000
-4000
time
upgraded joint
Figure 8
15
15
column shear (kips)

10
0
-0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
-5
(a) virgin joint

-10
average recorded displacement (inches)
15
column shear (kips)
10
0
-0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
-5
(b) upgraded joint

-10
average recorded displacement (inches)
Figure 9
16
4
column moment (tm)
compression
0
-0.0005 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025
-2
1
-4
13
-6
1
13
-8
strain
4
column moment (tm)
compression
0
-0.0005 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025
-2
2
-4
14
-6
2
14
-8
strain
Figure 10
17

Seismic Upgrade of Beam-Column Joints With FRP Reinforcement

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Seismic Upgrade of Beam-Column Joints With FRP Reinforcement

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Prota, A., A. Nanni, G. Manfredi, and E.

Cosenza, "Seismic Upgrade of Beam-Column Joints with FRP

Seismic Upgrade of Beam-Column Joints with FRP Reinforcement

A. Prota 1, A. Nanni1, G. Manfredi2, E. Cosenza 2

• Longitudinal reinforcement less than 2% of the concrete cross section

The remaining three are related to:

• Discontinuous positive reinforcement in the beam

• Lay-up laminates externally bonded to a concrete member to increase flexural and

Preliminary experimental results

Appendix A - Notations list

Acol: area of longitudinal steel reinforcement on one side of the columns;

Table 1. Experimental program

Table 1. Experimental program

COLUMN PANEL BEAM

List of Figure Captions

Figure 1. Specimen geometry (1 in =25.4 mm)

section D-D Cross section of the column

column shear (kips)

(a) virgin joint

average recorded displacement (inches)

(b) upgraded joint

average recorded displacement (inches)

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen